Trudeau could surprise us

I want to come to the (at least partial) defence of Justin Trudeau. Any incoming leader of a political party deserves a honeymoon. And in any case, what Justin Trudeau said about the Boston bombings wasn't entirely as reprehensible as is widely claimed.

The Liberal leader said that if he were prime minister at the time such an attack occurred in the United States, his first actions would be to offer consolations and help if Canada had any ability to provide it. (He cited the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington as a precedent.) His comments on the need to find the perpetrators and bring them to justice were perfectly adequate.

Unfortunately, Trudeau also segued into a sort of flower-child universalism that does raise a concern. There are random murders of this kind in many countries with regrettable frequency. Is Trudeau going to give homilies about fraternity and "exclusion" every time there is a new massacre in the Sudan, Iraq, Pakistan, or elsewhere? This kind of indiscriminate human fellowship seems to jangle with his protectionist attitude toward Chinese resources investment in Canada, but he will surely clarify these things in time.

"There is no question that [the Boston attack] happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded, completely at war with innocents," is how Trudeau put it. "And our approach has to be, where do those tensions come from?"

Is he seriously urging research into the grievances of Tamerlan and Dzhokar Tsarnaev (assuming the surviving brother is convicted by fair adjudication), so that we may organize a global response to the fact that they apparently did not feel themselves included suitably in American society, to the point that they would try to kill hundreds of total strangers?

According to what we know thus far about these brothers, their grievances are notorious and familiar to our era, and expressions of concern are not the correct response to them. If Justin Trudeau thinks that the West should be appeasing militant Islam, he is not fit to lead the unofficial opposition, much less the government — but then again, that is not exactly what he said.

All of this said, there must also be certain risks to Stephen Harper's government in coming out of the gate so soon with clearly premeditated attack ads against Trudeau. There is plenty of time for that sort of thing, as the next election likely won't take place until 2015. In the meantime, if the Tory allegation that "Justin is just in way out of his depth" is true, the public will see it clearly without the Conservative Party's war chest having to pay anything to make the point. That bolt has been shot prematurely and unwisely. If the charge is accurate, it need not be made; if it isn't, it should not be made and will backfire.

In the Tory ads, Trudeau was portrayed in amateur footage as removing his shirt and clowning for the camera (at a charity event, it turns out). I doubt if such film exists of me, but I must be one of the few adults in any advanced country who can say that, and there was nothing tasteless or offensive in the film. The voiceover accused Trudeau of preferring Quebec to other parts of Canada — but it turns out that the footage was from 1999, and in that interview he was merely seeking to paraphrase certain views of his father. This is pretty thin gruel for attack ads.

I also would point out that history is replete with people who have been underestimated, have risen to the task, who had hidden their lights under a bushel, and who pleasantly surprised the skeptics and shocked overconfident adversaries.

King

No one knew anything about William Lyon Mackenzie King when he was elevated at the age of 45 to succeed Sir Wilfrid Laurier as Liberal leader, except that he had been an English-speaking Liberal former junior minister who had been loyal to Laurier during a time of crisis. The fact that he was in fact resident in the United States and working for John D. Rockefeller was not much mentioned. And there was little in King's awkward prose, monotonous voice, complicated syntax and ambiguity in all things, to indicate that he would surpass Laurier and Macdonald (and even Britain's all-time champion of incumbency in days when the electorate could meet in an enclosure no larger than the Air Canada Centre, Sir Robert Walpole) in longevity as prime minister: 22 years.

Mr. King took us into, as well as out of, economic depression, and to victory in war; and almost spanned the Halibut Treaty and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. He went from group photographs with George V and the Empire premiers to photo-ops at the Quebec Citadel that made him seem the convenor of democracy's saviours (Churchill and Roosevelt).

It would be an insouciant person who would predict any such career trajectory for Justin Trudeau, but he has room and time to grow. The so-called New Democrats (whose claim to novelty has frayed these 60 years), recently enjoyed a levitation in Quebec where they were a way-station for an electorate that couldn't graze in the wilderness any longer with the angry yokelism of the Bloc Québécois, but wasn't prepared to return to a vacated fold of an old federal party. But Thomas Mulcair has back-pedalled inelegantly over the Clarity Act and Quebec's pettifogging language legislation, and could be vulnerable to Trudeau in Quebec.

In short: Those who believe in the messianism of a new Trudeau are likely to be disappointed. But so are those who would try to stampede the country to a dismissive superiority toward the new Liberal leader before we have had a look at him.

Note: Contrary to what Lysiane Gagnon wrote in the Globe and Mail on Thursday, I expressed no overall opinion about the Ontario health-care system in my column two weeks ago. I praised only those people I encountered during my described ophthalmological ordeal. I agree that I was fortunate to have a good general practitioner, but it is not only wealthy people who have a GP, nor surprising that they are often useful. Ms. Gagnon may wish to consult her own doctor to discover why her "sympathy gave way to irritation" upon news that my sight was retrieved in my left eye. If our roles were reversed, my response would be entirely upbeat.

[email protected]